Ted Nugent Criticizes Bob Costas' Gun-Control Commentary

Addressing this past weekend's murder-suicide involving Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher and his girlfriend, Costas quoted from an article by Fox Sports columnist Jason Whitlock during his 90-second speech, saying, "Our current gun culture ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead. Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it... If Jovan Belcher didn't possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today."
Responding to Costas' commentary, Nugent tweeted (December 3):
"We thought Bob Costas was smarter than that. Only fools blame tools instead of human failings. Shame Bob... Blaming guns for crime is like blaming helmuts for headbutts. WTF Costas! Uve lost it... Hey Bob Costas we all kno that obesity is a direct result of the proliferation of spoons & forks Get a clue... #BobCostas has clearly lost his mind. Inanimate objects are the problem not murderers. Brilliant."
According to Blabbermouth, Nugent also made an appearance on today's broadcast of Mark Davis' show on 660 AM in Dallas, where he continued his criticism of Costas. "The curse of the fantasy-driven cult of denial out there that is manifested in the voting for Barack Obama and the gun-running Attorney General ad nauseum - I didn't think that Bob Costas had that hole in his brain," Nugent said. "How dare you blame an inanimate object on something like murder? Why not blame the murderer?"

Lets see. Successful musician. Successful businessman. Successful conservationist. Tell us, how does this equate to being stupid? You aren't one of those tolerant and peaceful liberals who thinks that anyone with a differing opinion than you is stupid, are you?

"Dey turk our guns!"
I didn't see Costas at any point actually saying the gun was a murderer, only that if the gun wasn't there in the first place things may have turned out differently.
Nugent, you absolute fool of man.

I think the fool this time is Bob Costas. To say that Jovan Belcher and his girlfriend would both still be here today if not for our current gun laws is preposterous. Watching this clip when they first aired it was almost cringe inducing.
The guy clearly would have still done what he had done; he simply may have gone about it in another manner. For those who don't know, he killed the mother of his infant child, traveled to the Chiefs' headquarters, had a discussion with his head coach and general manager, and then killed himself in front of them. It very well may have been a crime of passion when he killed his girlfriend, but the same crime of passion could have happened with no weapon at all other than his hands to choke her with, etc. The suicide aspect of it was clearly either planned out all along or planned out once he had committed the first act.
His firearm may have reduced the amount of effort required, but it's ridiculous to say that it was anything near the cause of the whole incident.

By reducing the amount of effort required, it not only made it easier to make the decision to kill himself and his girlfriend, but it also reduced the chances of either of them surviving. If it wasn't so quick, then he could have still opted out. The struggle is often when people change their minds and try to live. If he was being poisoned, he could have called a hospital and could be saved, but using a gun took away that chance.
Besides if he uses a knife, there's some chance that his girlfriend could have escaped, or that the coaches could have taken it from him. There would have been more time to call 911. The tool makes it too easy.
The most important thing is that we change our culture. Guns need to be respected for what they're capable of and we need to force people to be responsible with them. I don't want guns to be taken away. That's too impractical. It's gun control that's really important.

I should have written that a little more clearly. The struggle I was referring to would be for instance if they're bleeding to death from stabbing themselves, they can still call an ambulance. If they put the trigger to their heads and pull, then there's no chance for them to opt out of the suicide attempt. It's during this struggle, that their minds could change or the reality of facing death may make them change their minds.

I don't agree with guns being banned, but your "BUT VEHICLES" statement is a fallacy. Vehicles are not weapons. They can be used as one but it isn't their purpose. A gun is a weapon. There is no way around that. This discussion is about a weapon.
A gun makes it easier to kill due to merely having to squeeze a trigger vs stabbing someone or beating them to death. There are those that would use other means, but there are those that just find it easy to pull a trigger in a rage. Plus, the difference between the chance of surviving a gunshot vs surviving hit with a random item used as a weapon. I'll take trying to survive being hit with a chair or something any day.
That being said, out of every gunowner in the U.S. the portion of crimes that happen with them is fairly small. The biggest problem is criminals, gang culture, etc. but there are ways to deal with that without banning guns.

you do realize that in a domestic dispute, that it is 12 times more likely to end in a homicide if there is a firearm involved? the difference really being her chances of survival even if beaten would be much higher

How much more strict? Where is the line, in your opinion? Please realize that criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. So if you say such and such is now illegal because yadda yadda, do you honestly think they are going to listen? Here's a big one that already encompasses all gun laws. Read it slow and comprehend: MURDER IS ILLEGAL. Now, we can slap more laws on top of that but really they are simply malum prohibitum (vs malum in se, obviously)

Our ****ed up culture kills people. If you're raised in judeao-christianism fashion, and we are, you're taught, as soon as you're born that family is the most important value and that love is lived with one person: monogamy. But it's contradictory with the capitalist system which induce greed and the desire for possession. These two factors mixed together can give some explosive cocktails as we've seen here.

I'm gonna say no. Crime has existed in every kind of culture, people have been greedy and violent before capitalism, etc, etc.
the problem is that it is a lot easier to get someone to comply when you say give me your wallet when you have a gun than when you don't, and its more likely that someone will die in an altercation involving a gun than in an altercation involving a knife, as all that needs to happen is for someone to pull a trigger. To say the main issue is capitalism is to make a giant impractical leap.

You didn't get the point, I'm not saying capitalism is the problem, but the values it induces is the problem. If love was more open, then there wouldn't these kinds of relationship problems and "passion" crimes

Also you might want to refer to my first point where I note capitalism does not have a monopoly on the inducement of greed, So I did address exactly that. This isn't a cultural problem its common to all of humanity.

Partly agreeing with Campbell. But I think the main cause of global moral decline is secularization in our society. Most kids today have no idea of who God is. Therefore, they grow up having no sense of right and wrong and would do as they please.

The funny thing about Ted is his music isn't what he's known for as much as being a redneck. Cat Scratch Fever is his claim to fame, but it isn't that great, more people know him for the statements he makes.

I like Costas, he has no problem saying what he feels. I remember he had a few choice words for the Olympic Committee this year when they denied a moment of silence for the Israeli athletes killed in '72.
And he was quoting someone else. . .
Guns make killing someone much easier psychologically. The fact that you do not have be in physical contact with them (as opposed to a stabbing/strangulation) makes it very impersonal. Plus, with a gun killing 5-20 people at a time is very possible while with a knife, not so much (Aurora guys? That was only 5 months ago). As a citizen I respect the 2nd, but guns are wicked stoopid. Why does a professional athlete need a gun? He can afford the best security money can buy and probably bodyguards so I find 'for protection' a little hard to believe

I just want to address the last topic. Guns can be used for protection (as well as hunting, competition, or recreation), but the 2nd amendment was not to give people a means of self defense. The 2nd amendments primary purpose was to allow the citizenry to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. A historical example of this is pre-WWII Germany. Hitler's government outlawed private gun ownership which allowed SS members, Gestapo, and such to round up and arrest anyone they wanted. Because the citizens could not defend themselves Germany became a military controlled state.

Do you see many redcoats walking around these days?
We have system of checks and balances to safeguard against any 'tyrannical gov't.' The argument you're using is so antiquated and reactionary. I'd like to think that as a people we've moved beyond rural militia as a means of problem solving. And while the WWII example is a frightening one (Godwin's law lol), I'd like to think we're in better shape than post-war Germany
Please be honest, I'm interested: Within the next 100 years do you think the people of the US are going to have to use guns to defend themselves against their government?

This argument is outdated. As recently as world war two we only had few choices of attack as a government: Guns, inefficient bombs and gas, which would be impractical. Today, the government has every conceivable level of weapon and option to wipe you and your family off the map, with little effort, no matter how many handguns you have. The world has moved beyond the 2nd amendment, much like it has moved past the need for word-for-word interpretations of the bible. The constitution therefore needs to be updated.

The German argument does not work for a few reasons. One, the Nazi's recieved overwhelming support from the population. In one election, Hitler ran unopposed and a massive number of people turned it out. They did not have to but they choose to in record numbers. So there was no major movement in Germany trying to stop Nazism. Second, they rounded up people with state power. Our country, even with the second amendment, can still arrest you with state power.

I cannot believe I'm about to say this. It almost makes me feel physically uncomfortable.
But I agree with Nugent. The man has made some DUMB statements recently, but I agree with him here. I think we as a country focus too much on whether we should have guns or not, not how to own and use them responsibly (Read: Not for crime).

I think what he's saying is that it is inevitable for guns to be out there. The black market will never go away. If there was an outright ban on guns, by definition, the only people that had them would be criminals. So in the vicious cycle, really one of the only problems that can be remedied is accidental/misuse of guns (through education). This would (hopefully) make it safer for law abiding citizens to own guns and use them for their intended purpose.

Except he said "how to own and use them responsibly (Read: Not for crime)" And I don't think anyone (at least anyone sensible) is advocating an outright ban of guns, gun control means restricting the sale etc so that people with bad records etc can't buy them. This would obviously not solve gun violence but gun violence is a lot more prevalent when access to guns is easy. There is nothing wrong with advocating gun education, but its not going to have any real influence on premeditated gun violence.

I could list a whole lot of obvious ones, mental issues being the most obvious, but the crux of it is gun control should, in my own personal view, be a combination of education and restriction, to own a gun you should need to have logged a number of hours in gun safety courses, be a member of a gun club for a certain period, and other such measures, so that the people legally permitted to own guns are people who respect guns, know how to use them and have a solid track record.

Except statisically there are far more gun crimes in countries with a gun ban than in those where there is none. I live in the UK and it is incredibly rare to hear reports of gun crime, and get there is a huge criminal culture in the UK.

If the guy didn't have a gun & wanted to kill his girlfriend, he certainly could have done it some other way. Killing himself in front of his coach would have been much harder. What could he do, perform hari-kari with a broadsword? Bang his head against a brick wall until he was dead? No, the gun didn't commit either crime, but it sure as hell made it much easier.

i still wonder why americans think walking around with a gun in your pocket is OK.....
arguments "guns dont kill people, people kill people" is wrong..... its still better to get punched in the face than shot in the face.....
i saw news, where guy was shotig around when he was drunk all the time, police couldnt take his gun cause AMERICA and FREEDOM..... yeah, he killed a guy

when you are on your property they pretty much just deal with night disturbance..... and yeah it is true, and its no just this particular case,just look how many "accindents" could have been avoided just by not giving *****s a gun

I believe there are some instances where gun control very well could prevent a shooting, it wouldn't be able to stop most gun violence though.
I think Bob should've tried to raise awareness at another time.

Ehhhh. Eddie Izzard once said, "Guns don't kill people, people do - but I think the guns helps." Quite true...
And we may not realize the gravity of what he says, probably because of its simplicity and humor. But when you ACTUALLY think about it, what he says goes beyond the notion of "the gun as a man-operated tool" and into "the gun as a cultural device". You have to be a goddamn fool (Nugent) to think that the statement "guns cause crime" relieves PEOPLE of any sort of moral agency.
"Inanimate objects are the problem not murderers. Brilliant."
See, this is the foolishness. Obviously murderers are the root of the problem, but guns make it easier (physically and psychologically) to kill. You have to wonder: how many murders could be prevented by limiting access to guns? Even if the answer is 0.5%, that translates to a very large number with a significant social impact. When people say "well, gun control wouldn't stop all gun violence" - no shit, it's not supposed to. Even if it stops a small amount, you're saving a considerable number of human lives. To expect that gun regulation would control the majority of gun violence is... absurd.
Also, the suggestion that people will just find another way to kill if they can't access a gun is based in no factual evidence whatsoever. Using your hands, or even a knife, to kill a person is completely psychologically different from using a gun. The gun distances you, symbolically, from the act - and that may sound flaky, but it's true. Premeditated murders might be planned differently, but these so-called "crimes of passion" might not escalate to using hands to kill.
Anyways, I think this is all a moot point because the real discussion we should be having is about mental health awareness. Of course, gun debates will always win that battle though.

Not hating, just asking...That gun control can limit a minority of gun crimes that happen now, but would clearly open up a much higher percentage of opportunities to gun crimes because of defenseless victims? And that's worth it?

Compare the crime rates of America to similar nations that have more gun control and it would appear that is not true. Most people who get guns do so for the logical reason that they intend to use them. Thus criminals who intend to use guns for criminal acts will get guns. Your average man on the street who would only see a gun as useful in the off chance that he is confronted by danger is unlikely to get a gun, because he sees the chance he will use it as being slim (A taxi driver would have more reason to have a gun as he world be more likely to feel threatened on a daily basis). So there really aren't that many less defenceless victims, but a whole lot more gun crime.

Not true. Arizona has extremely light gun laws. They practically give guns to people. However, there are relativly few gun crimes. (4.54 per 100,000 people)
Chicago has extremely tight gun laws. There is an extremely high number of gun crimes. ( 34 per 100,000 people)
This proves that if gun laws are stricter, it is still possible that gun crimes will occur. and having almost no gun control doesn't mean that there will be a high number of gun crimes.
For the record, I compared an entire state (Arizona) to a single city (Chicago). The city, had 8 times more gun crimes

The fact that you looked at Chicago, and not Illinois, is favourable to your argument. Rates of gun violence are actually quite similar between Arizona and Illinois (almost identical, in fact). Of course there is going to be more gun crime in a city the size of Chicago (gangs, greater pop. density, etc). This seems common sensical to me...
(2) http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...

Automobiles kill a lot more people than guns do, and I'd assume at least 90% of those deaths are completely unintentional. I also believe the fatality rate would decrease much, much more than 0.5% if access to cars and other motorized vehicles. It would be a much greater improvement to our safety as a whole if access to automobiles was strictly limited.
Your argument could be applied to many other things to show the ridiculous nature of it. Let's try the internet: not all internet users pirate music/movies/software, but all internet piracy is committed online by internet users. Therefore, if we strictly limit, regulate, and monitor all internet access, we might not be able to stop piracy, but we could likely reduce it by 0.5%. That might not save all the copyright holders, but it would at least slightly raise their financial security, which would outweigh any negative aspects of it.

People need cars a lot more than they need guns, its far more logical to restrict gun access than it is car access. A car's primary purpose is transportation, a gun's is to kill or injure. Also, we do limit access to cars by various measures. His argument made perfect sense in that it was in relation to a gun, not to a car which is not logically comparable to a gun. Your comparison was quite a stretch.

Even with those limitations on vehicles they are still the #1 killer in the U.S. And don't EVER bring up need. You need oxygen. You need food. You need sleep. That is ALL you need. So introduce need into an argument is extremely subjective.

The difference between guns and cars is pretty clear... The primary purpose of cars is to transport people efficiently. They have a hugely positive economic impact, to say the least. The primary purpose of a gun is to cause harm. You might argue that for many people the purpose is to provide perceptions of safety, but that feeling of safety only arises from an implicit understanding that one can use a gun to hurt someone else.
The point? Don't compare guns to cars - I hope you can see how silly that is. Cars cause deaths in a way that is very far removed from their purpose. When we're talking about "controlling" anything, we are necessarily weighing positives against negatives. Cars have load of positives to outweigh related accidental deaths. Do guns?
In any case... you're comparing apples to oranges.

Excellent point about mental health awareness. Here's a guy who's got more resources than most (he's a rich pro-athlete) and doesn't get the help he needs for obvious mental issues. But, it immediately gets turned into a gun control debate.

How is the suggestion that people will just find another way to kill w/o guns based in no factual evidence? Are you saying that all murders (pre-meditated our out of passion) are gun crimes? It's convenient to your argument, but not at all true. I did a brief google search, 68% of murders in 06 were with the use of a firearm. So... the other 32% were just.... You make an impact on that 68% by some sort of extra control measures, I guarantee the other side of the pie will grow. I'm just saying that it's foolish to think that if you take away the gun in Belcher's situation, he wouldn't have just picked up a knife/strangled/beat her to death.

That's were the lack of factual evidence is. You saying "I guarantee the other side of the pie will grow" is an assumption. It's the way you think things work, and I can't say for sure whether you're right or wrong - but I can say that you're unjustified in assuming.

Because it's still the wild west in some places. I live in the middle of the country. The closest law enforcement is 15 miles away, unless a county sheriff just happens to be around my area by chance. What do you expect somebody to do if a criminal breaks in? The cops are too far away to help. Your neighbors are too far away to help. And when I was broken into last year, aiming my shotgun at the intruder sure helped me keep him under control until the cops did arrive 15 minutes later.

I'd just like to point out that the reason gun crime APPEARS to be reduced in populations with higher rates of gun-ownership per capita isn't because guns reduce crime. It's because those areas tend to be rural, where owning a gun is a necessity to either hunt for food, putting down animals or defend your property from certain things (wolves, coyotes etc.), and these areas have less crime because the closest people are literally miles away, making it pretty hard to even commit a violent crime.

God there is so many whiny b**ches on this site.
And how about this Costas, if BELCHER didn't want to kill his girlfriend, they'd both be alive.
DUUHHH HEY, maybe we should ban kitchen cutlery too so people don't start stabbing other people DERP A DERP!!

Electric chairs, designed to kill people. Gallows, designed to kill people. Nuclear weapons, designed to kill people.
Guns, designed for hunting/self-defense, definite CAN kill people. Knives, designed for cutting matter, definitely CAN kill people. Cyanides, designed for KILLING bugs, used as reagents, CAN kill people too.
If you don't see the difference between these two separate groups, then I don't know what to tell you.

Meanwhile in Europe where we have an almost outright ban on guns we only very rarely get this level stupidity from rednecks.
When will Americans learn that tyrannical governments are nigh-on impossible in the free world? Again - look to Europe since the end of WW2

The rednecks that saved our girly asses in WW2...? Hmmmmm ok...I can see your point but you "rednecks" kind of looked the other way for 2 years as the Nazi tyranny rampaged thru Europe. How very altruistic of you.
and what Police states exactly???

Nugent is right on this one. And it's stupid to say they would still be alive today. If someone wants someone dead, they will find a way. A gun might make it quicker but it's not the only choice. The real issue as I see it is Jovan had serious issues in his life he needed to deal with and I am sure there are many out there dealing with issues - maybe Costas should have dwelled on the fact that those dealing with thoughts of murder or suicide should seek help and given out a hotline #.

Nugent is a complete fool.
Though it is true you cannot blame the gun, you can certainly blame what the gun adds to the equation. A gun is a powerful object, in the hands of a complete moron it is more lethal than anything. But is is a tool, to be used by said moron. In this point I agree however without the gun the moron is just what he is, a moron who would have to resort to beating someone to death, which is a time consuming manner in which the opposition to said beating has a good chance to either escape or return the volley of blows and disable the moron. This is also of course ignoring the psychological effects that having a gun in one sides hands changes. By feeling empowered by having this tool of power they are less likely to back down from their position, more likely to become aggressive given they have the upper hand and certainly become a lot more dangerous. Though the gun cannot be blamed, the effects it brings is the point of what his argue, not that the gun itself responsible for all evils.
I start again by stating, ted nugent is a fking idiot.

So, for consistency, lets add to you argument. How many people can you kill with your average family sedan and a full tank of fuel? An average semi-auto pistol has a capacity of 15 rounds. Assuming a kill shot for every round thats 15 people. A car can drive what, 300 miles or so on a tank of fuel. How many people can you run over? Heck if you hit a bus just right you can kill everyone on it in the blink of an eye. Cars are 4000lb killing machines. Hell, you even have to be licensed and registered to drive one and yet they are still the #1 killer in the U.S. They will let any psycho behind the wheel. They will let any psycho buy as much flammable/explosive gasoline as they want.

While I will agree with the commenters that it's the American culture that is the real cause, you all seem to turn the blind eye to the fact that America's current gunlaws dont help in any way the problem, and actually still just makes it worse - change is needed!

I you make the laws sticter then the people who get their gun illegaly will still be able to get them, and the people who get hem legally won't. Changing the gun laws won't change anything. The problem is the people themselves. gun don't kill people. People kill people. The gun is just the tool. Making the gun less accsesible, will only cause people to find another way to kill each other.

That is true. The simple minded folks think its a gun problem. It has nothing to do with guns. Its a cultural problem. Somewhere along the line it became ok to deal with your problems by killing other people. Is it TV? Lack of leadership? Bad parenting? No morals? I don't know the answer to this but I have seen a cultural shift.
There is also something interesting to note. As gun ownership has risen in this country, the crime rates are actually going down (despite what the tabloid news would have you believe). Whether the two are related or not I don't know.

Agree 100%. I like watching interviews with criminals. You know what is a common response when they ask the robbers what they are most afraid of while committing crimes? Not getting caught. Not the police. Not jail. "Getting shot"

Yea Ted. The same way that corporate CEOs blame their workers for EVERYTHING instead of themselves when they're the ones running the companies and shipping all the jobs out. Fuck you, you republican douchebag.

You can call Ted Nugent an idiot all day long, hell I'll chime in with you. However, blaming this on America's "gun culture" is right up there with being as ignorant as anything Ted has ever publicly stated. As if a 250 linebacker couldn't find another way to kill a 150 pound woman besides a gun. Shame on you, Bob.
Maybe if Jovan wasn't roided up didn't have his brain smashed around on a daily basis he wouldn't have been mentally distressed enough to commit such a horrible crime. But no, let's blame the gun.

Maybe, maybe not. There's no way to say definitely that he would've suddenly come to his senses and realized what he won't be able to live with what he's about to do if he didn't have a gun. The fact is that he could've done the deed with any number of other tools.

Thats a good point. Had this lady been armed she would have at least had an equal chance at survival. Without either of them having a weapon, she stood no chance. With the guy just having a weapon, she stoof no chance. Had she been armed she would have at least had some kind of a chance for survival.

So you want the murderer to survive and rot in jail? Really? He deserves to be dead. He knew that after he killed his wife and decided to make his child an orphan. We don't need gun control. We just need all the psychotics to off themselves like this guy did.

a .22 cailber round will bounce off the skin and leave nothing more than a scrape or bruise. however, they will tear through a paper target at almost any range, making them an excelent round for target shooting and sporting events.You sir have no ****ing clue what you're talking about. You generalize based on what other people say. Why don't you do some research into what you are saying.

I'm on your side but this simply isn't true. Maybe a weak .22 short will bounce off ( I doubt it though... a ~30 gr. bullet hitting with ~70 ft lbs is still pretty tough) but the most common .22 long rifle will definitely put holes in people. Its a ~40 bullet moving at ~1200 fps and hitting with an energy of ~140 ft. lbs. Thats nothing to sneeze at. It will puncture a skull. They work well for target shooting because I can buy a brick of 500 rounds for 10 bucks. They also work well for hunting small game.

Depends on range. At a certain distenace a .22 round will just bounce off the skin. I was thinking faster than I was typing and skipped that part. it really has to do with decleration. as the round decelerates it losses for ce and eventually will drop out of the air. at a certain point before it drops, it will do no more damage than a BB.
Also, .22 caliber rounds lack the capability to enter AND exit the human skull. they bouce around on the inside and turn anything in their path to mush.
And in response to them being used for small game, you can hunt squirells and rabbits with a BB Gun. which is almost harmless to human beings.
And I noticed that you are playing my side. I just like to argue with people, and you sir are giving me good points to argue.

The .22 does not bounce around and turn things to mush. This is an "urban legend". I have read way too many books on ballistics and firearms wounds... ANY bullet will just bounce off you after it loses velocity but it depends on how it is fired. A bullet fired straight up will not have enough velocity to do much damage when it comes back down. A bullet fired in an arc will generally still have enough kinetic energy to do damage by the time it hits the ground. A .22LR is potentially lethal out to about 1.5 miles when fired flat as one would do aiming at a target.

No worries. Just do a google search for .22 ballistics and you will find a ton of info about that round (and many others). The .22LR is a stout round for being so small. Check out the .22 WMR. That is a badass little round.
I'm a firearms enthusiast and a geek. A trait of the geek is to acquire way too much information about a particular topic. Its part of the reason I comment and ague with people on this topic, especially in a place like this where the Europeans know nothing about our laws and culture or even about the weapons themselves yet seem to feel competent enough to speak as experts. I find them rather humorous, don't you?

I'm from Tennessee and spent 6 years in Arizona. I'm also a firearms enthusiast, and have a habit of researching things when I'm bored at work. And it's not necisarily that they don't know our laws and customs, it's more that they are sometimes too proud to learn them. (Don't hate on me for saying that Europe. I am simply generalizing, and don't wish to upset anyone.)
Though I do enjoy arguing topics like this. and all the stupid ****in copyright infringement posts. Which are putting a stranglehold on new artists and music enthusiasts. (which is almost everyone in the world)

I agree with both Nugent and Costas. It's true that you can't blame guns for killing people. People get pissed and kill other people. It's not the guns fault some moron or psychopath used it to kill someone. But also better gun control would also lessen the chance that that person would have a gun to kill people with. Granted, it's not hard to kill someone, and it might stop them completely, but I ensure you it would lessen the gun violence just a little bit. even if it only causes 1 less death a year it's better than nothing.

I agree. People keep trying to devolve and give all their freedoms back to the government. The days of kings I thought were finished... alas this is not the case. People actually WANT mafiosos like their lord and savior Obama to control their lives. Such a simple thing like self defense they'd have removed and given to their government overlords.

Chicago is a mafia city and thats where our lord and savior mafia don Obama comes from. Even petty jobs like being a garbage man require a trip to the mayors office and a cut of your pay as extortion money or whatever.

He's stupid because he thinks that guns have no influence on the outcome of any disputes that escalate into violence.
He also thinks that everyone who disagrees with him is stupid, the devil or brainwashed by obama as clearly shown on this article and many others.

guns arent all of the problem i admit that but noone in the world as a normal citizzen needs an m16 to feel safe in their home unless other people have guns in their neighbourhood take guns away as a legal right and you have alot less killings, look at the killings in other countries that dont have them legalized compared to the us thats where your facts are, and wow how does noone chirp this guy but mustaine gets a rapsheet from ug and some fans when he makes claims of conspiracy and this guy calls someone stupid for saying guns are bad...